collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?  (Read 1466 times)

Offline bbarnes

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Posts: 525
  • Location: Mt Saint Helens
    • Mt Saint Helens Rescue .com
Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?
« on: December 07, 2009, 10:10:18 PM »
To others and myself there is no other way to look the situation,of bringing wolfs to this state.Who's liable if some one is hurt or killed by these predators,when our WDFW is allowing them to come here.There also talking about relocating them to,   Mt.saint Helen's and willapa hills.This is no different then owning a pit bull, and having it hurt or kill some one in front of your home.The outdoors people on this site and others, need to contact every polition in this state and ask them who's the liable party.Our wild life and our heritage is at stake here,a few phone calls and emails can't hurt, its the least we all can do before it's to late.Here's the definition you decide.To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation (note that in the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness). The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).

The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur.  Thanks B Barnes keeping public lands public.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

If this is your trap by SWHUNTER
[Yesterday at 10:50:36 PM]


WA Moose scouting by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 10:42:18 PM]


JBLM Archery by Carwash
[Yesterday at 10:20:12 PM]


William o Douglas lakes by buggy
[Yesterday at 10:12:58 PM]


JBLM by Carwash
[Yesterday at 10:08:39 PM]


Looking for Solid 22 LR input by run870
[Yesterday at 09:15:50 PM]


Teanaway bull elk by Stein
[Yesterday at 09:14:42 PM]


49 Degrees North Early Bull Moose by Vandal44
[Yesterday at 07:10:03 PM]


3 days for Kings by Parasite
[Yesterday at 07:02:37 PM]


I'm Going To Need Karl To Come up With That 290 Muley Sunscreen Bug Spray Combo by dvolmer
[Yesterday at 06:30:50 PM]


Raffle ticket sales 2025 by greenhead_killer
[Yesterday at 06:18:45 PM]


Yakima bow shop by maxwell
[Yesterday at 05:41:04 PM]


Cell cam recommendation for security? by Stein
[Yesterday at 05:01:50 PM]


2025 Montana alternate list by Sakko300wsm
[Yesterday at 03:55:08 PM]


The end? Bird bands. by hdshot
[Yesterday at 03:44:43 PM]


North Sea Fishing trip by BLH69
[Yesterday at 02:05:14 PM]


2025 Crab! by BLH69
[Yesterday at 02:02:40 PM]


Early Huckleberry Bull Moose tag drawn! by MMCCAULEY
[Yesterday at 09:25:10 AM]


Mt. St. Helens Goat by CNELK
[Yesterday at 07:31:32 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal